B Sriram v. Bank of Baroda
Case brief
What is this about?
The applicant challenged a sale notice under SARFAESI Act claiming the property was his coparcenary asset. The Tribunal held the sale notice was withdrawn due to an out-of-court settlement, rendering the application infructuous and dismissed it.
What did the court decide?
Present Securitization Application dismissed as infructuous; interim order, if any, stands vacated.
What the court decided
SA No.86/2022
1
06.10.2025
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 06th day of October, 2025
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
SA No. 86 of 2022
B. Sriram S/o Late J. Balaraman No.114, AVS Main Road, Annai Nagar, Korattur RS. Chennai 600 076 …Applicant
-Vs-
- The Authorised Officer Bank of Baroda
- Zonal Stressed Asset Recovery Branch Meher Chamber,
Ground Floor, Dr. Sunderlal bhai Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application filed by a third party challenging the sale of mortgaged property is maintainable when loan account has been settled.
Whether the status quo order granted earlier was violated when the sale notice did not materialize following out-of-court settlement.
Whether relief under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act is available when the security interest holder has withdraws the recovery proceedings via settlement.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
B. Sriram
- respondent
The Authorised Officer Bank of Baroda
- respondent
M/s Arnon Trading Private Limited
- respondent
Mr. Jay Deepak Kapadia
- respondent
Mr. Susil Adam Seelan
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court